I am sharing this case because the issue with Profitov Partners is not simply a payment dispute. The main problem is their inconsistency in what was agreed, what was approved, and what they later claimed after conversions were generated.
I was first contacted by their affiliate manager with an offer to run two brands for GR, Dragonia and Robocat. The offers were presented as “Google Search General Offerwall”, but at no point in the initial conversation was this described as an exclusive traffic restriction. The only concrete condition I was given was that traffic must not be fraudulent, misleading, incentivized, or bonus hunting (like every other partnership in the world).
After that, they asked for performance information, approved my account, created the working chat, activated the offers, and sent the links. They also asked me to share my websites before launch, which I did. They reviewed the sites and confirmed that everything was fine to start.
The campaign then went live and was monitored by their side from the beginning. A few days later, after conversions had already been generated, they suddenly raised concerns about poor traffic quality. Even at that stage, they still did not claim that I had violated any traffic-source restriction. Instead, they asked additional questions and continued discussing performance.
When I explained that my site has an established audience and that part of my visitors are returning users who also come back through my social pages (through daily posts), they did not reject that explanation. On the contrary, they acknowledged it, asked follow-up questions, thanked me for the clarification, and said they would discuss it with the advertiser.
Only much later, when payment became the issue, they changed the basis of their argument. At that point they started claiming that I had been approved only for “Google Search” traffic, that I had used a non-approved source, and even that I had referred to “Facebook communities”, which is not true. This was never the agreed framework at the start, and it was never raised as a restriction while the campaign was active.
This is exactly where the inconsistency lies. If the traffic source had really been outside the approved terms, that should have been stated clearly before launch or at the moment they reviewed the funnel and websites. It was not. If the traffic had truly been unacceptable under their rules, it should have been stopped immediately on that basis. It was not. Instead, the campaign was approved, monitored, discussed, and only later reinterpreted after conversions were already delivered.
There is another important point here. Their own terms state that if suspicious traffic is detected, it should be stopped immediately, and traffic is not paid only if the partner continues sending traffic after being instructed to stop. I complied with their instruction and removed the brands as soon as they told me to stop. On their own wording, the traffic delivered before that point should still be payable.
The explanations they later used also do not hold up well. I was told there was “identical behavior”, yet deposits ranged from 10 EUR to 100 EUR. I was also shown an Ahrefs screenshot as if it were proof of actual user activity, even though Ahrefs is only an estimation tool for search visibility and does not reflect real traffic behavior.
My issue here is simple. Profitov Partners approved the campaign, monitored it while it was running, did not enforce any clear traffic-source restriction during the active period, and only after conversions were generated introduced a different interpretation in order to justify non-payment.
My agreement was with Profitov Partners, not with their advertiser. So from my perspective, this is a case of a network changing its position after the fact and refusing to honor the deal on the basis of arguments that were not part of the original agreement.
I am posting this so other affiliates can judge the timeline for themselves. I have the full chat history available.
I was first contacted by their affiliate manager with an offer to run two brands for GR, Dragonia and Robocat. The offers were presented as “Google Search General Offerwall”, but at no point in the initial conversation was this described as an exclusive traffic restriction. The only concrete condition I was given was that traffic must not be fraudulent, misleading, incentivized, or bonus hunting (like every other partnership in the world).
After that, they asked for performance information, approved my account, created the working chat, activated the offers, and sent the links. They also asked me to share my websites before launch, which I did. They reviewed the sites and confirmed that everything was fine to start.
The campaign then went live and was monitored by their side from the beginning. A few days later, after conversions had already been generated, they suddenly raised concerns about poor traffic quality. Even at that stage, they still did not claim that I had violated any traffic-source restriction. Instead, they asked additional questions and continued discussing performance.
When I explained that my site has an established audience and that part of my visitors are returning users who also come back through my social pages (through daily posts), they did not reject that explanation. On the contrary, they acknowledged it, asked follow-up questions, thanked me for the clarification, and said they would discuss it with the advertiser.
Only much later, when payment became the issue, they changed the basis of their argument. At that point they started claiming that I had been approved only for “Google Search” traffic, that I had used a non-approved source, and even that I had referred to “Facebook communities”, which is not true. This was never the agreed framework at the start, and it was never raised as a restriction while the campaign was active.
This is exactly where the inconsistency lies. If the traffic source had really been outside the approved terms, that should have been stated clearly before launch or at the moment they reviewed the funnel and websites. It was not. If the traffic had truly been unacceptable under their rules, it should have been stopped immediately on that basis. It was not. Instead, the campaign was approved, monitored, discussed, and only later reinterpreted after conversions were already delivered.
There is another important point here. Their own terms state that if suspicious traffic is detected, it should be stopped immediately, and traffic is not paid only if the partner continues sending traffic after being instructed to stop. I complied with their instruction and removed the brands as soon as they told me to stop. On their own wording, the traffic delivered before that point should still be payable.
The explanations they later used also do not hold up well. I was told there was “identical behavior”, yet deposits ranged from 10 EUR to 100 EUR. I was also shown an Ahrefs screenshot as if it were proof of actual user activity, even though Ahrefs is only an estimation tool for search visibility and does not reflect real traffic behavior.
My issue here is simple. Profitov Partners approved the campaign, monitored it while it was running, did not enforce any clear traffic-source restriction during the active period, and only after conversions were generated introduced a different interpretation in order to justify non-payment.
My agreement was with Profitov Partners, not with their advertiser. So from my perspective, this is a case of a network changing its position after the fact and refusing to honor the deal on the basis of arguments that were not part of the original agreement.
I am posting this so other affiliates can judge the timeline for themselves. I have the full chat history available.
